The present study assessed the association of apical rocking with super-response to CRT in a large cohort of patients. Apical rocking was strongly associated with super-response. Furthermore, super-responders had a lower incidence of cardiac death, heart failure hospitalisation and appropriate ICD shocks.
Super-response is associated with decreased cumulative probability of heart failure or all-cause mortality and ICD therapy for ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation. Therefore, predicting super-response is important. Previous studies tried to find predictors of super-response. LBBB and smaller left atrial volume were previously identified as predictors of super-response [
16,
17]. The MADIT-CRT trial [
11] identified female gender, no prior myocardial infarction, QRS duration ≥ 150 ms, LBBB, BMI < 30 kg/m
2 and smaller left atrial volume index as predictors of super-response.
The present study assessed several general characteristics and apical rocking as a echocardiographic parameter to predict the potential super-response, and identified lower baseline LVEF, female gender and apical rocking as predictors of super-response to CRT. Although the association of higher baseline LVEF with ‘normal CRT response’ has been established, in the current study lower baseline LVEF was associated with ‘super-response to CRT’. One of the recent trials [
18] demonstrated that super-responders had lower baseline LVEF compared with non/modest responders (22.6 vs 25.8 %,
P < 0.001). Our results are in line with this trial. However, in the MADIT-CRT trial [
11] there were no significant differences in baseline LVEF between super-responders and non-super-responders. Apical rocking, as we recently published, predicted the response to CRT [
14] and can be visualised in a standard echocardiographic four-chamber view. This is in contrast to several dyssynchrony indices, which require well-trained echocardiographers and special imaging software and techniques. A previous study compared a quantitative measurement with visual assessment of apical rocking and demonstrated a comparable accuracy in predicting CRT response [
13]. Therefore, in this study we decided to use only visual assessment which can be assessed easily with a good interobserver and intraobserver variability. In 2007 Jansen et al. [
19] described apical shuffle as an abnormal systolic septal-to-lateral motion of the left ventricle. Apical shuffle, has been shown to be predictive of LV reverse remodelling with sensitivity and specificity between 70 and 90 %. The investigators, however, did not describe the pathophysiological mechanism of apical shuffle. In recent years, the pathophysiological mechanism of apical rocking, defined as short-lived early septal motion of the apex and a predominantly lateral motion during ejection, has been described in 2 separate publications [
12,
13]. Apical rocking is the same phenomenon as described by Jansen et al. [
19], however, they called this abnormal movement of the apex ‘apical shuffle’. Septal rebound stretch (SRSsept) is another relatively new dyssynchrony parameter. Previous studies [
20‐
22] demonstrated the strong association of SRSsept with CRT response. Septal rebound stretch reflects the amount of stretch in septum during systole and seems comparable with ’multiphasic septal motion’ which has been described by Jansen et al. [
19]. However, in the current study we did not assess the predictive value of SRSsept on ‘super-response to CRT’ because we only had data on septal rebound stretch in a minority of patients
. Our study, as far as we can ascertain, is the first to demonstrate the association between apical rocking and super-response. Although we predefined our LVEF response categories carefully, and found a strong association between apical rocking and super-response, we realise that our results should be confirmed in large multicentre trials. Although apical rocking has a strong association (OR 5.82, 95 % CI 2.68–12.61) with super-response as compared with patients without apical rocking, we emphasise that even in patients with apical rocking only 44 % are super-responders. This low positive predictive value of 44 % is dependent on the definition of super-response and low prevalence of super-response in our cohort. The absence of apical rocking is a strong predictor of non-super-response with a negative predictive value of 89 %. However, the absence of apical rocking was not our focus in the current study.
The response to CRT can change over time, particularly shortly after CRT. In our cohort echocardiographic examination after CRT implantation was performed after a mean of 2.1 years (IQR 1.4–3.2). The time from implantation to follow-up echocardiogram was comparable in both groups [in non-super-responders 2.1 years (IQR 1.4–3.3) and in super-responders 2.1 years (IQR 1.4–3.1), p = 0.80)]. So, we do not think that timing of echocardiography caused misclassification of super-responders.
Long-term outcome in super-responders to CRT
The cumulative probability of all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalisation, cardiac death and appropriate ICD therapy for VT or VF differed significantly across LVEF response categories at 6 years of follow-up, with improved event-free survival based on the magnitude of response (Fig.
2). In the current study we observed 11 % all-cause mortality, 8 % hospitalisation due to heart failure and 1 % appropriate ICD therapy in super-responders. None of super-responders died from cardiac causes. In MADIT-CRT [
11] all-cause death occurred in 1.6 % and all-cause death or appropriate CRT-D therapy in 5.2 % of super-responders. However, in MADIT-CRT, follow-up was shorter (median 15 months). Another recent trial with 259 CRT patients and mean follow-up of 5.6 years showed a cardiovascular mortality of 1.5 % and all-cause mortality of 6 % in super-responders defined as LVEF > 50 % [
23]. One of the largest trials with 92 super-responders (LVEF > 50 %) demonstrated that the survival rate was similar to that of the age- and sex-matched general population with appropriate shocks in 4.4 % of patients [
24] during a mean follow-up of 5.7 ± 2.4 years. Given the good prognosis of super-responders which is demonstrated in previous studies, including the current study, we should be able to identify these patients and apical rocking may play an important role.
Strengths and limitations
Both the large size of the study population and the long-term clinical follow-up are probably the major strengths of the current study. For the definition of ‘super-response’ we used the top quartile of LVEF response based on change from baseline to follow-up, exactly the same definition as in the MADIT-CRT trial [
11], whereas other studies used an absolute LVEF > 50 % as cut-off for super-response. Changes in LVEF as a definition of super-response can be difficult to interpret. A patient can show both a decrease and an increase in LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volume, so the LVEF remains relatively unchanged. Therefore, non-response or response to CRT can be unnoticed. The follow-up echocardiographic examinations were performed at a median of 2.1 years (IQR 1.4–3.2), which means that all potential LV remodelling has taken place, as demonstrated in a previous study [
5]. However, the majority of the studies performed the follow-up echocardiography at 6–12 months post-implantation. Furthermore, our data concern observations of a single centre, although with high experience in CRT. Our study focused on patients with available baseline and follow-up echocardiograms. Therefore, a proportion of patients (14 %) were excluded from the analysis. These patients included those who died before follow-up echo or were lost to follow-up because of referral to their own regional hospital. Another limitation of the current study is that the Kaplan-Meier graphs started immediately after the implantation whereas defining of response group by follow-up echocardiograms took place at a mean of 2.1 years. The current study population most closely resembles real life with inclusion of patients with atrial fibrillation. Visualisation of apical rocking was not negatively influenced by the inclusion of patients with atrial fibrillation. Suboptimal LV-lead placement or unfavourable pacemaker settings may, at least in part, have contributed to diminished improvement of LVEF and poorer outcome after CRT. In our population, no information is available on optimisation during follow-up.